MANGILAL VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-1990-1-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on January 23,1990

MANGILAL VYAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF U P VS. PADAM SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1995-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
HARIRAMAN VS. STATE THRO VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1994-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASEKAR VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJAKADAI POLICE STATION DHARMAPURI DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA SINGH KALER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1991-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALWINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1992-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. CHANAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1993-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
KULBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1990-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
HARJODH SINGH PATWARI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1990-11-93] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHA SHANKAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKEEL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-372] [REFERRED]
SHYAM LAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-1991-4-206] [REFERRED]
RAMACHANDRA SAHOO VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-8-53] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 29/01/1987 of the High court of Rajasthan. Jaipur bench. The applications filed by the appellant under S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceedings in eight cases pending against him for the offence under S. 408 of the Indian Penal Code, were dismissed by the impugned judgment.
(2.)The appellant was the Manager of the central Co-operative Bank, Jhunjhunu, during the period from 1/02/196 1/06/1963. After the special audit in the year 1963, prosecution was launched against the appellant for the embezzlement during this period. The appellant was alleged to have misappropriated various amounts received by him from different Sahkari Samities. The proceedings commenced in the year 1963 and eight cases are now pending trial. The inherent jurisdiction of the High court was sought to be invoked for quashing these proceedings on the ground that the inordinate delay and the consequential harassment to the appellant required the exercise of such power to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. The High court after detailed examination of the entire facts and the history of the pending proceedings as well as the causes for the delay, concluded that it is not at. all in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. The learned Judge affirmed:
"It is highly desirable and expedient in the interest of co-operative movement and the larger public interest that an offender against whom charges of embezzlement of amounts entrusted to him by various Sahkari Samities, prosecution should come to its legitimate end and the accused should not be allowed to abuse the process of court by delaying himself the criminal proceedings which he is now facing by his own conduct. "

(3.)The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been prosecuted in 11 criminal cases for offences under S. 408 or 409 IPC, that the proceedings are pending for over 25 years, the prolongation of the trial without any fault on the part of the appellant amounts to persecution of the appellant and, therefore, the proceedings should have been quashed by the High court. It is maintained that in spite of passage of several years, no evidence worth the name has been recorded by the prosecutor. We have been taken through the various steps taken in each case and the nature of the evidence purported to have been collected.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.